3 ms·
So they are not the speaker for the purposes of liability, but they are the speaker for the purposes of first ammendment protections? That doesn't make sense to
by TGower 1y ago
So they are not the speaker for the purposes of liability, but they are the speaker for the purposes of first ammendment protections? That doesn't make sense to me, but it certaintly wouldn't be the most confusing law on the books and you seem to be more informed on the topic than me. Do you have any insight on how that dynamic would apply to something like The Pirate Bay? Intuitively on that basis, users uploading content would be liable, but taking down the site would be a violation of the operator's first ammendment rights.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> So they are not the speaker for the purposes of liability, but they are the speaker for the purposes of first ammendment protections? People who are not “the speaker or publisher” for liability purposes have Constitutional first amendment free speech rights in their decision to interact with content, this includes distributors, consumers, people who otherwise have all the characteristics of a “speaker of publisher” but are statutorily relieved of liability as one so as to enable them to make certain editorial decisions over use generated content without instantly becoming fully liable for every bit of that content, etc., yeah. And arguing the alternative is you making the exact inversion of statute and Constitution I predicted and which you denied, that is, thinking Section 230 could remove First Amendment coverage from something it would have covered without that enactment.